Did someone mention my name?

It is almost like I was writing Lemieux’s copy!

According to my epithet generator, defenders of those who accept illegal recess appointments are Stupid, allah-loving unintelligent hooker loving Meat-headed fried-chicken-licking douche brains.

When it comes to things “Neo”, liberals have taken the red pill, and keep trying to see how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

Hiya Dick! How’s the campaign going?

Re, Prof Jacobson’s post:

What the hell is going on with all of these knotheads claiming we need to be less “negative” or “angry?”

Are these people unable to distinguish between grim determination, and the optimism we will succeed, and some idiot Occupy shouter who just wants to destroy things?

We can be as mad as we want without letting it run away with our senses. After all, the right is not the side that thinks using emotion and tone. We use logic, facts, reason, and an understanding of history, tactics, and the human psyche.

The left is always ginning up fear, hate, and anger.

Anyone on the right who only sees only anger and negativity is looking in the wrong place, with the wrong sense of perspective.

That’s how I remembered it too. I love how people who can’t even get the dates right think they’re qualified to lecture on subtler points of intellectual endeavor.

When judges uphold abortion, or ruled that Terry Schiavo must die of starvation and dehydration – with armed guards to prevent any act of humanity – I guess these are neo-Yankee judges.

Apparently Lemieux is not bothered at all by the declaration that the NLRB will not abide by the court’s decision.

The declaration to go Outlaw has nothing to do with the judges – and everything to do with the Outlaw intending to break the law.

So, for the lawyers in the group. If an Outlaw gives a decision in a matter of labor relations, is either party obligated to honor that decision?

If I remember my history correctly, much of federal labor law has its roots in racism. The Davis-Bacon Act, for example, was specifically adopted to keep non-union (read, black) workers from take jobs from union (read, white) workers. That’s the sort of thing I’d expect a Confederate judge would have upheld.

A certain amount of confrontasi is both necessary and sadly missing in the conservative movement. It’s not enough to hold conferences, posh, rowdy or otherwise, or publish books no lefty or low-info voter will read (because they never hear about them), or even try to push “our” candidates through a party machine that does not want them.

Get out on a street corner. Write at least one comment on a network or newspaper blog for each one you write to Stacy or Ace or Twitter. Get in their faces. Be seen and be heard. MAKE them try to silence you, don’t just LET them ignore you.

K-Bob is quite right. It’s another word the meaning of which the Left is trying to hijack. But this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to fight for it’s actual definition: a group within conservative thinking – often refugees from the Left – who believe that (1) big government is not pure evil and (2) it is one of the duties of the US to help create representative governments in other counties [not encourage, but actually intervene to help found].

Swimmingly! Want a membership card in the new Dead Republicans Party (DeRPP)?

A Neocon is one of a species of mislabeled conservatives who are mostly refugees from the Dimocrat Party that were of the hawkish wing of the party that got run out during the 70s by the McGovern faction. It also includes the so called “big government conservatives” like Juan McAmnesty and Lindsey Graham. It’s looking like it includes Rubio now.

Neocons actually are liberals just trying to pass themselves off as conservatives.

It still is used by many on the Left to mean Jooz or ‘Jew-Lovers’.